Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama to Congress in weekly address: End the sequester already (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where do you want the anger? (6+ / 0-)

    I think most of us are disgusted with the White House and both House of Congress and both parties.  At long last the left is in accord with middle America.

    •  The progressive caucus voted for this. (0+ / 0-)

      I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

      by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:22:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did I say I believe the Progressive Caucus (3+ / 0-)

        is progressive?  And it sure isn't left, liberal, or even old school New Deal.  

        •  Exactly. (5+ / 0-)

          Outside of GLBT rights, our progressive representation is limited to 3-5 representatives.

          And that does not make the President's staunchly counter-productive neoliberalism acceptable.

          Ditto for that of his supporters.

          He will NEVER be an effective leader for the goals he claims to have in this speech until he effectively confronts and denounces those aspects of modern neoliberalism that enhance the lawless, corrupt concentration of income and wealth. And he shows no credibly genuine interest in doing so.

          Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

          by Words In Action on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:37:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Only 3 to 5? (0+ / 0-)

            Sounds like there aren't enough progressives to vote for them. And which 3 to 5 would that be? Bernie Sanders voted for this too, you know?

            I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

            by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 03:59:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. The entire Democratic Party, with perhaps (5+ / 0-)

        3-5 exceptions, is broken. We agree. But you say this as if that excuses the President from representing the 98% in action as well as words (and in the case of the latter, he is not consistent, except that he consistently gives credence to the corrupt form of neoliberalism knowable as supply-side economics, which directly undermines the words--such as the ones he spoke this morning--that intimate he would like to do something for the 98%.

        The widespread corruption and deliberate ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party does not absolve the President from also being almost completely counter-productive to pursuing the Democratic Party platform.

        See my comment here.

        Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

        by Words In Action on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 08:32:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is obvious that the progressive caucus has no (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        maryabein, Words In Action, Patango, GwenM

        sense of strategy at all.  This piecemeal move is only going to encourage sequester cherry picking and we all know who will win that game.
        The progressive caucus should let the people that have the money to fly around spewing jet fuel suffer from lack of regulation of the air space.
        Gawd, what a bullshit issue to choose as the poster child for the suffering inflected by sequestration.
        Fuck those planes, let them crash.  Regulation is bad because "freedom".

      •  The progressive caucus (4+ / 0-)

        repeatedly falls in line with the Third Way party machine in power and folds like a tent when push comes to shove. They are not willing to go up against a so called Democratic administration. Talk about pretzel logic. Your really twisting what is clear as a bell as far as the choices we face into a blaming game. Seems those of us who reject the whole DC political non-partisan bamboozle are to blame. Calling this a Democratic bill is exactly what's wrong with this administration. Whose freaking budget is this anyway hummmm? So if we don't buy this whole cooked up anti-democratic austerity grand betrayal were F'ing Re****s?          

        •  It's all an OFA conspiracy (0+ / 0-)

          Does Obama have some secret info on them? I can't think of a good reason why they won't stand up to him, other than that they agree with him. They have nothing to lose.

          I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

          by NoFortunateSon on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 04:01:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  lame deflection (0+ / 0-)

            and blame. The progressive caucus proposed a great budget did they purpose any of this austerity deficit debit farce? No. They may not have any power but they certainly are not the villains in this piece. Who knows why, does Bernie fold? They excuse they often give is that the alternative is usually worse so they get what they can. They are Democrat's and this administration is Democratic, I guess many do not want to turn against their own party leader. Then again maybe they don't want to wake up with a horses head in their bed. Sorry but your deflection and blaming of the progressive caucus from the presidents double speak does not let Obama off the hook this is his set up and his grand Betrayal.        

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site